Practical IIoT and Wireless Network Practices for Modern Mining

The following mine systems are typically reliant on some kind of wireless connection:

• operations and fleet management

• remote HME operations

• collision avoidance for mobile equipment

• asset health monitoring and reporting

• ore and grade control, drill patterns

• high-precision GPS for GPS corrections

• geotechnical monitoring

• fatigue monitoring of personnel

• underground remote equipment operation

• electrical power equipment monitoring and control

• leaching field monitoring

• condition-based monitoring of intelligent instruments and control elements.

When it comes to cybersecurity, every industrial sector has its own requirements, but mining and metals companies are benefiting from the work of the ISA Global Cybersecurity Alliance to advance cybersecurity readiness and awareness in manufacturing and critical infrastructure facilities and processes. Secure communication is key, because mining and metals information also involves business information as products change hands across the value chain. 

Another more local example of the need for secure communications happens when contractors who manage the pit fleet are moving material at the right grade from the pit to the owners of the plant: If trusted information is available for decision making, sites can realize the highest potential value of the ore based on specific productivity key performance indicators and other requirements. 

Updating a 10-year-old wireless data network

Consider the situation facing a mining operation with a 10-year-old wireless data network. At this point, it is likely at its bandwidth capacity, which limits new technologies and upgrades to existing systems (e.g., collision avoidance, turn-by-turn dispatch directions). Besides the environmental challenges of dust, vibration, and other dynamics affecting operation of the current network, there is a risk of increased system failure as the network ages, demands for performance and data rate increase, and spare parts availability diminishes over time. Likely after 10 years, parts are no longer commercially available and must be procured through third-party sellers. 

To mitigate the risk of unplanned system failure and therefore outage of several production- and safety-critical systems, management would have determined that the current wireless system must be upgraded or replaced with fit-for-purpose wireless technology that meets current and future bandwidth and cybersecurity needs. The new network must adapt to the current complexity of mine topography and evolve as the mine is further developed, either in an open pit or deeper and deeper underground. 

Execution of the upgrade (modernization versus migration) also needs to accommodate new and updated wireless technologies to improve safety, such as systems for driver safety and collision avoidance, upgraded fleet management, and improved production and processing capabilities. Ideally systems are “future ready” for some of the expected innovation currently in pilot stages at the mine to prevent regret costs. 

Given these requirements, the mine site has five options: run the existing network to failure; upgrade the current mesh network with no changes; replace it with a hybrid mesh/LTE network; replace it with a hybrid mesh/LTE network “as a service”; or install a site-specific 5G network. Here are considerations for each choice. 

Run the existing network to failure

Pro: Low cost up front. Cons: Potential incidents because the current network supports safety-critical systems; increased maintenance on the existing network with no replacement components commercially available; estimated three-week production impacts due to network failure.

Replace with latest version of current mesh network hardware with no change

A typical wireless infrastructure provider offers fixed wireless and Wi-Fi to broadband service providers and enterprises to provide Internet access. An example of this is a Canopy network. Pros: Replacement systems support safety-critical systems and are often downward compatible; components are readily available; the overall system is supported by the vendor of choice; and the solution provides the easiest cutover without much additional training. Cons: Inflated cost, and the system may not provide as much bandwidth as a hybrid mesh/LTE solution.

Replace with a hybrid mesh/LTE network

Pro: The replacement system supports safety-critical systems and avoids production impacts from a network failure; addition of LTE provides additional bandwidth; components are readily available; and the system is supported by the vendor. Cons: Highest cost option; added complexity; unfamiliarity of LTE would require training and SLA setting with the vendor.

Replacement with a mesh OR hybrid mesh/LTE 'as a service'

Like many platforms, hardware as a service is also available. Pros: Lower up-front cost and in greenfield sites, often a plus; good option when capital is scarce; there is a replacement system to support safety-critical systems; and the approach avoids production impacts from failure. Cons: Requires a long(er) term support contract and expense; network as a service relies on a service agreement between the customer and vendor for network maintenance and managing a business-critical system. (For this it is best if the vendor is intimate with the challenges in OT and IT for the specific industry.)